On June 21, President Donald Trump announced that U.S. military forces carried out airstrikes targeting three Iranian nuclear sites, aligning with Israel’s ongoing efforts to neutralize what leaders from both nations label as a serious threat.
Trump’s prior warnings regarding U.S. engagement in military actions provoked discussions about presidential authority and the necessity of Congressional approval for such operations. This same week, legislative measures were introduced in both the House and the Senate, aiming to require the President to seek consent from Congress before deploying U.S. troops for any offensive maneuvers against Iran.
The question of whether President Trump possesses the legal authority for such actions under U.S. domestic or international law remains a contentious debate. The U.S. Constitution grants the President substantial power to deploy military force, not only for the defense of the nation but also to safeguard broader national interests. Historically, Presidents have often ordered military deployments without the explicit approval of Congress.
While Article II of the Constitution confers considerable power on the President, Article I bestows upon Congress the power to “declare war.” However, this authority has yet to be interpreted as a mandate for Congressional sanction on every potential military action initiated by the President.
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has recognized that the “declare war” clause could potentially constrain the President’s ability to involve the U.S. military in hostilities equivalent to a war. An assault on Iran could pose substantial hazards to U.S. military forces and civilians alike.
International law generally forbids the use of force against another nation except in cases of self-defense or with UN Security Council approval. Numerous international legal experts would contend that, barring justification as a self-defense act or collective self-defense, a U.S. military strike on Iran would contravene international law.